FedCircuitBlog

This morning on its website the Federal Circuit released only one nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here is a link to it.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Southern District of California. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing “the interaction between the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)”;
• a report covering how Judge Newman filed a reply brief “reiterat[ing] her argument the D.C. Circuit should revive the lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional her suspension from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit”;
• a blog post indicating the Federal Circuit “significantly limited the reach of inter partes review estoppel” in a recent case; and
• a piece reporting how the “tech and retail industries are endorsing an effort by Dish Network aiming to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially expand the personal liability of lawyers who file failed patent cases that are found to be ‘exceptional’ by the courts.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Farrington v. Department of Transportation, an employment law case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. There, the Board determined that Farrington was not subject to whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Judges Lourie, Mayer, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in two patent cases. The court also received a waiver of the right to respond to one of the petitions in those patent cases, a brief in opposition to a petition in another patent case, and three new amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in yet another patent case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in an appeal from a decision by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a joint motion to remand a case and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Late last night the Federal Circuit announced that it will be closed today, February 12, due to inclement weather. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Two new amicus briefs were filed in a pending en banc case concerning standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. Additionally, one new petition was filed, presenting a question regarding apportionment of damages for patent infringement. Finally, the court denied an en banc petition raising a question regarding claim construction. Here are the details.